Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Mass Shootings Infographic

Security Degree Hub 

Mass-shootings

26 comments:

  1. According to this post, 65 out of 67 spree killers who used firearms for their murder weapon were mentally ill. And yet so many people are attacking citizens who own firearms. Attack the real problem -- mental illness.

    -- TruthBeTold

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only way to do that is extensive interrogation, which gun loons find unconstitutional. I'm all for mental evaluations before one can buy a gun. Will you support such legislation?

      Delete
    2. No. Any violation of one person's rights is a violation of everyone's rights.

      Delete
    3. If you agree with Truth, that mental illness is the problem, yet refuse to allow for such screenings, then don't pretend that you care about the needless deaths from gun shots, or maybe you do not.

      Delete
    4. I agree that mental health services with privacy guarantees need to be more widely available.

      Delete
    5. There needs to be a mental health evaluation prior to the granting of a gun owner's licence. What could be more obvious?

      Delete
    6. Obvious things. What you want isn't obvious at all:

      1. There shouldn't be a license just to own a gun, and in most states, there isn't such a thing.

      2. As I've asked you many times before, given the number of gun owners in this country, is this your idea of a jobs program?

      Delete
    7. You dodged the question. I also agree that, "I agree that mental health services with privacy guarantees need to be more widely available" but what I asked is if Truth is correct that, " Attack the real problem -- mental illness" would you support legislation to require mental evaluations before a gun purchase?

      Delete
    8. I did answer your question, but I'll answer it again and in more detail. No, mental evaluations should not happen before a gun is purchased. If someone has been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, that person's name should be in the background check system as a no-go, but that's it.

      Delete
    9. Thanks for the answer. My reply then remains the same:

      If you agree with Truth, that mental illness is the problem, yet refuse to allow for such screenings, then don't pretend that you care about the needless deaths from gun shots, or maybe you do not.

      And obviously you do not care to act on what you agree is a problem, mental health.

      Delete
    10. I don't see mental illness as a major problem, certainly not one to be addressed with the proposals that Mikeb offers.

      Delete
    11. "I don't see mental illness as a major problem, certainly not one to be addressed with the proposals that Mikeb offers."

      Oh, so you do not agree with Truth, that mental illness is the real problem, OK.

      Delete
    12. One can agree on where the problem lies, but that doesn't mean they agree with your solutions. 1) will screening actually work? Do mental health professionals possess psychic ability to identify a mentally unstable person in a sea of thousands of perfectly sane prospective gun buyers based on a half hour cold interview? 2) is it an acceptable burden? How long will one half to wait to get their screen down when there are tens of millions of people making appointments? Years? Decades? 3) what are the unintended consequences of directing mental healthcare resources away from the mentally ill, and instead to screening tens of millions of sane people?

      You can't assume everyone will agree that your idea is a good idea.

      Delete
    13. Greg can't make up his mind whether he believes mental health is a problem or not.

      In the same way people should have to pass a written and practical test for gun ownership, they should also have an eye exam and a psychological screening. Gun nuts pretend that something like that is so onerous that it's not practical, but that's just an excuse to not do it.

      Delete
    14. Can you address the three points I made above?

      Delete
    15. Greg doesn't agree that mental health is the problem as Truth stated, fine.
      We have a process that handles even more car owners. It can be done.
      We can never stop the supposed normal person, that just snaps, but we could stop the ones who have a history, or are obviously sick. Now, we don't have a process to stop even the obviously sick from buying a gun. Background checks would help, if those checks include checking those with previous mental problems. There is no process that will catch/stop 100%, but I disagree that is a reason to not try. Maybe we could catch 85%, that would save many lives.

      Delete
    16. 1. even the most cursory screening will catch the worst of the worst.
      2. For a start, I'd have the mental health screening requirement apply only to new applicants.
      3. same answer.

      Delete
    17. 1) how do you know that? What is your experience that leads you to believe a psychologists can talk to someone briefly and tell they are crazy? This is a cold interview- no history to go on.

      2) does everybody need a license, or just new gun owners? It's is still the difference between millions of people and tens of millions.

      3) every minute a health care professional spends interviewing sane people is taken out of time where they could have been treating sick people. You're cool with taking care away from those who need it?

      Delete
    18. Anon, if you are talking about identifying those with a history, that's a different discussion (and much more workable). Mike wants to make a history where there is none.

      Delete
    19. New laws usually do spur employment. Yes, we will need more health professionals to meet the requirement, or at least clerks to check background files.

      Delete
  2. I wish your side would learn how to read data. There's a spike in the 90s and then a decline. That's while the U.S. population has been rising.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish you could read simple bar charts. The 14 already in only 4 years 2010 - 2013 is on pace with the 1990s. Of course you think what happened in 2012 was just an anomaly, I suppose.

      Delete
    2. But you see, I know enough about data and statistics to realize that "simple bar charts" cannot be understood by simple minds.

      Delete
    3. It's not a dodge. You use sloppy methods to reach erroneous conclusions. I'm not dodging when I refuse to use the same methods.

      Delete
    4. Sure Greg. Keep pretending the decade starting in 2010 is not off to a helluva start.

      Delete